The Instigator
harrymate
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Equalizer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should the US intervine in the Ukraine crisis militarilly?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
harrymate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 61300
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

harrymate

Con

First round is to accept the challenge; there are four rounds total. MILITARY INTERVENTION MEANS BOOTS ON THE GROUND EITHER BY THE US OR NATO.
Equalizer

Pro

Challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
harrymate

Con

First of all, we should know Putin's intentions. According to BBC News, Putin wants Russia to be like the Cold War Era when Russia was militarily and technologically strong. Should NATO or the US intervene militarily, Putin will use it as an excuse to put more Russian boots on Ukrainian soil and more weapon support. Similar events have taken place before. In the war between China and Japan in the late 1800s, Japan employed her troops because the Chinese military entered the Korean Peninsula. We can see this is true because Russia seems to deny everything, from the boots on the ground to the downing of MH 17 by the rebels.

Also, there are alternative ways to stop Putin. The US has recently found millions of barrels of oil in her territory. The Wall Street Journal said in its article in March of 2014 that one of the weapons that the US has is its energy supply. The United States could export its oil to her allies to end energy dependency on Russia. NATO and the US is also acting diplomatically, holding a summit.

Finally, the US is not being attacked by Russia militarily. Why must the US act militarily when it is not being affected militarily? This would only escalate tensions and would do Ukraine no good. In the fight against ISIS, the United States is affected militarily and it has already executed two American citizens, In this case, the US has a right to defend her people by attacking ISIS. Russia HAS NOT threatened an innocent US citizen and therefore the US has no right to attack Russia.
Equalizer

Pro

Equalizer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
harrymate

Con

Since you have forfeited, I have nothing to say.
Equalizer

Pro

Equalizer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
harrymate

Con

You have lost, Equalizer.
Equalizer

Pro

Equalizer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by harrymate 2 years ago
harrymate
@MykSkodar: Maybe I should do that...
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
This has to be the most frustating feature of this website. The same thing happenend for my first debate, had to restart the debate from scratch with someone else. I reckon you can attempt it again and use the same opening statement. Let me know if you do that.
Posted by harrymate 2 years ago
harrymate
When will my opponent start his argument? I'm starting to get impatient here. Maybe next time I should just give my opponents 24 hours... (Sorry, I'm an impatient person...)
Posted by harrymate 2 years ago
harrymate
If only my opponent could finally start with his first argument...
Posted by Equalizer 2 years ago
Equalizer
I can not wait to get this party started. If only my opponent could finally start with his first argument....
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I say all or nothing. I believe that if putin thought that NATO would go to all out war he would back off. But if Obama is leading the charge, he would call his bluff. Because that is all the backbone our commander -in-chief has, and he knows it.
Posted by michael90000 2 years ago
michael90000
... Unless we are reffering to something else.
Posted by michael90000 2 years ago
michael90000
If Russia gets too powerful, they will pose a huge and higher threat.
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
I am sitting on the fence on that issue, so this debate should be very interesting!
Posted by Faded.Ink 2 years ago
Faded.Ink
When you refer to 'military intervention', do you mean weapons shipments to Ukraine? Arming of Proxy forces? Full NATO involvement or solitary US intervention? Full boots on the ground or merely logistical support?

More specifics please.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
harrymateEqualizerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
harrymateEqualizerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.